coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  In May 1999 the applicants were laid off by the Diyarbakır Sur municipality, with which they had been employed.
5.  Each of the applicants brought an action in the Diyarbakır Labour Court, claiming outstanding salaries, dismissal indemnities, severance pay and other pecuniary rights.
6.  In November 1999 the court ruled in their favour and ordered the municipality to pay the applicants certain amounts in Turkish liras (TRL), including costs, together with interest running from June 1999.
7.  In the absence of an appeal the judgments became final on 19 November 1999.
8.  In the following months, the applicants initiated enforcement proceedings in order to receive the due amounts. As their efforts proved fruitless, they requested the Diyarbakır Governorship to intervene in order to facilitate the enforcement of the court's judgments. The Governor's Office informed the applicants that it had requested the municipality to redress their grievances. However, due to lack of funds, the municipality did not make any payment.
9.  At the date of introduction of the present applications, the relevant judgment debts were still outstanding. Thereafter, on an unspecified date, Hatip Bozyıl received his full award of 724 New Turkish liras (YTL) and friendly settlement agreements were reached between the following applicants and the municipality on the dates indicated:
- Ramazan Fidancan on 6 February 2002;
- Muhyettin Babayiğit on 11 April 2002;
- Ali Rıza Babayiğit on 27 October 2004;
- Talat Tunç on 21 May 2002;
- Hüseyin and Mehmet Şirin Kamik on 30 December 2003; and
- Fahri Açan on 13 May 2005.
10.  No settlement was reached in respect of the other applicants. However, the municipality deposited certain partial amounts in the relevant account at the local enforcement office, which amounts were made available to some of the applicants and paid later.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Antalya.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 7 October 1999 the applicant was taken into custody for his suspected involvement in terrorist activities. On the same date the Magistrates' Court of Antalya ordered his detention pending trial.
7.  At a hearing held on 25 November 1999, the State Security Court of Izmir ordered the applicant's release.
8.  On 29 June 2000 he was acquitted of all charges.
9.  On 10 August 2000 he applied to the Antalya Assize Court, seeking compensation pursuant to Law no. 466. That Law provides, inter alia, for an award of damages to any person who has been unlawfully deprived of his or her liberty, or who, after being lawfully detained, was not subsequently committed for trial or was acquitted after standing trial.
10.  The applicant claimed a total of 6,050,000,000 Turkish Liras[1] (TRL) in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, comprising lost wages as a construction worker, legal costs and fees and moral damages.
11.  On 13 June 2002 the court handed down a judgment awarding the applicant an unspecified sum of money.
12.  Upon separate appeals by the applicant as well as the Treasury, the Court of Cassation quashed that ruling on 12 May 2003 and remitted the file to the Antalya Assize Court for a more comprehensive examination.
13.  The assize court resumed the proceedings by broadening the scope of its examination of the damage which the applicant had suffered. On 23 September 2003 the court gave a second judgment, which the Court of Cassation quashed on 18 October 2004. Once again the Court of Cassation directed the court to conduct a more thorough research into the applicant's entitlement to damages.
14.  On 18 February 2005 the assize court handed down its third ruling, awarding the applicant 781 New Turkish liras.[2] The parties appealed separately.
15.  The applicant learned through his verbal contacts with the assize court's registry that on 6 February 2006 the Court of Cassation had upheld the latter judgment with certain rectifications.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Izmir.
5.  The facts of the case, as presented by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  Until 1987 the applicant worked as a primary school teacher in Izmir.
7.  On 30 March 1983 he was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.
8.  From 30 March 1983 to 30 September 1987, he was suspended from his post on account of the criminal proceedings against him.
9.  In 1984 the Diyarbakır Martial Court convicted the applicant under Article 141 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment.
10.  By a decision of 30 September 1987, the Ministry of National Education dismissed the applicant from his employment. It reasoned that the applicant was no longer eligible for the civil service since he failed to fulfil the requirements of the post as prescribed by Article 48 § A-5 of Law no. 657.
11.  On 12 April 1991 Article 141 of the Criminal Code was repealed by Law no. 3713 (the Anti-Terror Law).
12.  On 4 December 1991 the Izmir Assize Court ordered the removal of the applicant's conviction under Article 141 of the Criminal Code.
13.  On 15 September 1992 the applicant filed a petition with the administrative authorities and requested his reinstatement to his previous post.
14.  On 31 December 1993 the applicant was reinstated to the post of primary school teacher at a primary school in Konak.
15.  On 8 February 1994 the applicant filed a petition with the principal of the primary school. He requested to be given the rights and earnings which he was denied during his suspension and dismissal periods.
16.  The principal of the primary school transmitted the applicant's petition to the Konak District National Education Directorate.
17.  By a decision dated 11 April 1994, the Ministry of National Education dismissed the applicant's request.
18.  On 9 May 1994 the Konak District National Education Directorate informed the applicant about the Ministry's decision.
19.  On 30 May 1994 the applicant filed an action with the Izmir Administrative Court, seeking compensation for the damage he had suffered as a result of his allegedly unlawful suspension and dismissal. He further requested to be granted the rights and salaries of which he had been deprived during those periods.
20.  On 20 December 1996 the Izmir Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's claim. It reasoned that the decision of the administrative authorities concerning his reinstatement to his previous post would not enable him to claim the rights and earnings which were denied him during the suspension and dismissal periods.
21.  On 6 April 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's request for appeal. It opined that the reinstatement of the applicant did not give him the right to recuperate rights and earnings for the suspension and dismissal period.
22.  On 31 August 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court's decision was served on the applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Manisa, Turkey.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  In 1991 the applicant sat a competition for admission to the civil service. Following his success in the competition, the General Directorate of Higher Education Credit and Hostels Institution (“the General Directorate”) (T.C. Yüksek Öğrenim ve Yurtlar Kurumu Genel Müdürlüğü) conducted a pre-employment background investigation. It found that the applicant had not mentioned his criminal record in his application form.
7.  On 14 January 1992 the General Directorate decided that the applicant was not eligible for appointment to a vacant post on account of the negative findings in the pre‑employment investigation. In particular, in 1980 the applicant had been convicted of issuing threats against one of his teachers and had been sentenced to four months and twenty days' imprisonment, which had then been converted into a fine.
8.  On 7 February 1992 the applicant brought an action in the Ankara Administrative Court requesting the annulment of the General Directorate's decision of 14 January 1992.
9.  On 26 October 1993 the Ankara Administrative Court dismissed the action. The applicant appealed.
10.  On 18 December 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Ankara Administrative Court's judgment holding that the applicant was suitable for employment.
11.  On 22 December 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the General Directorate's request for rectification of its decision.
12.  On 10 March 1999 the Ankara Administrative Court abided by the Supreme Administrative Court's decision. It found that the applicant had fulfilled all the requirements of the vacant post in question as prescribed under Law no. 657. It therefore ruled that the applicant was eligible to become a civil servant.
13.  On 8 June 1999 the General Directorate appealed.
14.  On 31 October 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal.
15.  On 30 May 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the request for rectification of the decision.
16.  On an unspecified date, the applicant brought a new action in the Ankara Administrative Court against the General Directorate requesting compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage which he allegedly had suffered as a result of the decision dated 14 January 1992.
17.  On 28 December 1999 the Ankara Administrative Court awarded the applicant a certain amount of compensation for pecuniary damage but rejected his request for non-pecuniary damage. The court further decided that legal costs should be shared by the parties, given that it partially acceded to the applicant's claims for compensation.
18.  On 26 April 2000 the General Directorate appealed the Supreme Administrative Court judgment, arguing that the applicant had not suffered any damage and that therefore the legal costs should be borne by him.
19.  On 30 May 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Ankara Administrative Court's ruling was in conformity with law and procedure.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Şırnak.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 11 February 1994 the applicant's stores and goods were burned and destroyed in the course of an armed clash between members of the State Security Forces and militants from the PKK (the Workers' Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation), in the Silopi district of the province of Şırnak.
7.  On 14 February 1994 the applicant filed a declaratory action before the Silopi Magistrates' Court for an assessment of the damage he had suffered as a result of the clash and the fire.
8.  On the same day the Silopi Magistrates' Court appointed an expert to determine the damage.
9.  On 16 February 1994 the expert submitted a damage assessment report to the court. The expert noted in his report that his conclusions were based on the applicant's claims since the receipts for some of the goods had been burned as a result of the fire.
10.  On 26 December 1994 the applicant filed an action with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court against the Ministry of Interior and requested compensation for the damage he had suffered.
11.  On 30 December 1994 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court dismissed the action on the ground that the applicant had failed to apply to the Ministry of the Interior with his claim. The court reasoned that, under Article 13 of Law no. 2577, an action of this kind could be filed only after the administrative authorities had refused the litigant's request.
b)  Second set of proceedings
12.  On 1 February 1995 the Ministry of the Interior received the case file from the Diyarbakır Administrative Court. The Ministry did not respond to the applicant's request for compensation within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
13.  On 3 April 1995 the applicant filed an action with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court and requested compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the destruction of his stores.
14.  On 7 May 1998 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court awarded the applicant compensation based on his annual tax return in 1993. It held that the expert report on the applicant's damage should not be taken into consideration since the assessment of the damage was based on the applicant's claims alone.
15.  On 19 August 1998 the applicant appealed.
16.  On 10 April 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Diyarbakır Administrative Court's judgment. It held that the lower court had erred in its assessment of the damage sustained by the applicant as it had disregarded the damage to the goods in the stores.
17.  In a judgment dated 16 June 2005, the Diyarbakır Administrative Court, complying with the Supreme Administrative Court's ruling, partially acceded to the applicant's request for compensation. The applicant appealed against this judgment as well and, according to the information in the case file, the proceedings are still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the city of Dniprodzerzhynsk.
5.  On 29 January 2003 the Pavlograd Court awarded the applicant UAH 19,381.50[1] in industrial disease benefits arrears against the State-owned mining company “Geroyiv Kosmosu”, which on 3 March 2003 was joined to the State-owned Holding Company “Pavlogradvugillya”.
6. On 2 April 2003 the Pavlograd Bailiffs' Service (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) instituted the enforcement proceedings.
7.  On 29 April 2004 the Pavlograd Court assigned the “Pavlogradvugillya” as the debtor in the enforcement proceedings.
8.  On 23 September 2004 the Pavlograd City Court rejected the applicant's complaint against the Bailiffs. The court indicated, inter alia, that the award could not be paid due to the debtor's lack of funds. The scope of action for the Bailiffs was also limited by the funds allocated from the State Budget to the Ministry of Fuel and Energy for payment of the industrial benefits.
9.  On 25 October 2004 the debtor company was privatised.
10.  On 27 December 2004 the judgment debt was paid to the applicant and the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Sukhodolsk, Lugansk region.
5.  On 31 March 1997 the Krasnodon Court awarded the applicant's husband UAH 27,669 from his former employer, the State Mining Company “Duvannaya”, in compensation for health damage inflicted by a work accident.
6.  In May 1998 the applicant's husband died.
7.  On 27 June 2000 the Presidium of the Lugansk Regional Court, upon the prosecutor's protest lodged under the extraordinary review procedure, quashed the judgment of 31 March 1997 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The outcome of these proceedings is unknown.
8.  On 21 August 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnodon Court against the State Mining Company “Duvannaya” claiming compensation for health damage allegedly due to her late husband.
9.  Between September 2000 and November 2001 seven out of nineteen hearings were adjourned due to the respondent's representative failure to appear before the court.
10.  On 18 March 2002 the Krasnodon Court found against the applicant.
11.  On 4 July 2002 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal (former Lugansk Regional Court) upheld this judgment.
12.  On 2 August 2002 the applicant lodged with the Krasnodon Court her appeal in cassation. She was requested by the court's secretary to pay the postal expenses for sending her case-file to the Supreme Court.
13.  On 27 November 2002 the Supreme Court returned the case-file to the Krasnodon Court as the applicant also challenged the ruling of 27 June 2000, which was not attached to the case-file.
14.  On 24 October 2003 the Supreme Court returned the case-file to the Krasnodon Court as its ruling of 27 November 2002 was not fulfilled. The Supreme Court further explained that the ruling of 27 June 2000 could not be appealed within the pending proceedings.
15.  On 30 October 2003 the case-file was sent back to the Krasnodon Court.
16.  On 12 April 2004 the Krasnodon Court allowed the applicant until 27 May 2004 to rectify the shortcomings of her appeal in cassation. Following the applicant's request, the time-limit was extended until 25 June 2004.
17.  On 2 August 2004 the case-file was transferred to the Supreme Court.
18.  On 6 November 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Dunakeszi.
5.  In the context of a supply contract, on 23 December 1994 Kiss és Kolláth Bt. – a limited partnership managed by the applicant, of which he is also a shareholder – filed an action against another company claiming a certain amount of money.
6.  After seven hearings, on 19 September 1997 the Pest Central District Court dismissed the applicant's claim. The second-instance court quashed this decision on 11 February 1999.
7.  In the resumed proceedings, on 26 March 2003 the District Court held several hearings, obtained the opinion of an expert and again dismissed the applicant's claims.
8.  On appeal, on 23 September 2004 the Budapest Regional Court reversed this decision and awarded the applicant 4.4 million Hungarian forints (HUF), plus accrued statutory interest. The court dismissed the applicant's other claims for interest. It relied on documentary evidence, the opinion of the expert and the testimony of witnesses.
5.  The applicant, Mr Mihai Ursu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1970 and lives in Peresecina.
6.  On 31 March 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having murdered, in 1993, Mr I.O., whose mother became Speaker of Parliament in 2001.
7.  Between 2 April and 3 August 2004 he was remanded on the basis of monthly detention orders issued by the Buiucani District Court. The detention orders set out as grounds for his detention the fact that he had been suspected of having committed a serious offence punishable by more than two years' imprisonment; moreover, the isolation of the suspect from society was considered necessary because he might abscond and obstruct the criminal investigation by influencing the witnesses.
8.  In his appeals against the detention orders, the applicant argued, inter alia, that his detention was not necessary since there were no objective reasons to suspect him, that during his detention no investigation measures had been carried out and that he suffered from epilepsy and needed specialist medical treatment.
9.  All his appeals were dismissed on the ground that the circumstances warranting his detention had not changed. On 6 July 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal reduced the duration of the detention order from thirty days to twenty days on the ground that “during the previous month no investigation measures were carried out ... the suspect did not have a criminal record, he has a family and minor children, a house, a job and serious health problems.”
10.  On 3 August 2004 the Prosecutor's Office submitted the applicant's case file to the competent court. After that date the applicant continued to be detained without any detention order.
11.  On 21 December 2004 a habeas corpus request lodged by the applicant was rejected and he continued to be detained in pre-trial detention until 6 July 2006, when he was convicted and sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 5 April 1988 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and her alleged accomplices. On 20 August 1990 the Budapest Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment charging them with larceny. Subsequently, the Pest Central District Court held five hearings.
6.  Between 15 March 1993 and 30 September 1994 the applicant was not available for trial. Subsequently the District Court held seven hearings. In the period between 26 August 1998 and 13 August 1999, the applicant was again unavailable for trial.
7.  From 5 May 2000 until 5 March 2003, the Pest Central District Court held seven hearings.
8.  On 21 May 2003 the court ordered the applicant's examination by an expert psychiatrist. Since the applicant did not comply voluntarily, it could not take place before 21 November 2003.
9.  On 31 March 2004 the applicant was acquitted.
4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Beograd.
5.  On 16 July 2001 the applicant, along with fourteen other individuals, instituted civil proceedings against his former employer seeking payment of certain sums of money.
6.  On 13 August 2003 the Beograd Fourth Municipal Court declared the action inadmissible because the plaintiffs' lawyer had failed to submit a full list of plaintiffs and their addresses, a specification of their claims and a power of attorney.
7.  On appeal, on 28 April 2004 the Beograd District Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case. It found that the plaintiffs' lawyer had supplied the requested documents and that the case was suitable for examination on its merits.
8.  On 16 November 2004 the applicant filed a complaint with the Supreme Court concerning the length of the proceedings. The Supreme Court forwarded that complaint to the president of the Beograd Fourth Municipal Court, who, having reviewed the case file, informed the applicant that the next hearing in his case was scheduled for 22 December 2004.
9.  At the hearing held on that date, the court decided to split the claims made by the various plaintiffs into separate proceedings and another judge was appointed to hear the applicant's case. The newly appointed judge ordered the joinder of the applicant's case to the initial case file, but was unable to obtain that file until 11 June 2005.
10.  The court apparently held hearings on 19 January, 11 April, 6 June, 3 July and 23 October 2006.
11.  On 5 April 2007 the first-instance court gave judgment in the case and, according to the information provided by the parties to date, the proceedings are currently pending before the second-instance court following the applicant's appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1915 and lives in Nyíregyháza.
5.  On 12 January 1996 the applicant brought an action against her neighbours with a view to terminating their common ownership of a house.
6.  After having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert, on 25 November 1996 the Nyíregyháza District Court dismissed the action, holding that no physical division was possible, whereas a buyout or the auctioning of the house would cause the respondents disproportionate damage.
7.  On 17 September 1997 the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.
8.  On 13 May 1998 the Supreme Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the second-instance court.
9.  In the resumed proceedings, on 29 August 2000 the Regional Court ordered the respondents to buy out the applicant's share of property.
10.  On 26 February 2003 the Supreme Court upheld this decision. Its judgment was served on the applicant on 17 June 2003.